I'm not surprised they aren't taking a loss on the Xbox ONE hardware out of the gate. I think they learned last generation that taking a loss, plus unanticipated costs (such as the $1.15 billion dollar 'repair' charge) made it very difficult to profit on the Xbox, and the xbox was supposed to be very profitable in the second generation.

This time around, they're determined to profit of of it. They need some kind of profit centers away from Windows and Office, because while those are huge cash cows right now, they're also under significant threat as users migrate away from using bit-by-bit.

I believe it will cost them marketshare that they'll lose primarily to Sony.

This time around, they're determined to profit of of it. They need some kind of profit centers away from Windows and Office, because while those are huge cash cows right now, they're also under significant threat as users migrate away from using bit-by-bit.

The only problem for them is their competition is putting out a roughly equivalent product at a lower price point.

I'm glad they aren't abandoning the system, but I have mostly. Now that my Live Family packs are EOL, I'll only be renewing the one Live account for my eldest, and retiring mine. It isn't a huge loss for me as I rarely play online anyway (other than Netflix) these days but now I'll have to be a guest on his account because it isn't worth the $30-$60 for how much I use it.

Makes me wonder what going to happen with all the digital content people have accumulated for the 360. When Microsoft dropped support for the original Xbox it wasn't that big of a deal because very little of the content depended on the internet. Now with all the DLC, updates, and arcade games a substantial portion of people's content is tied to the internet.

I'm glad they aren't abandoning the system, but I have mostly. Now that my Live Family packs are EOL, I'll only be renewing the one Live account for my eldest, and retiring mine. It isn't a huge loss for me as I rarely play online anyway (other than Netflix) these days but now I'll have to be a guest on his account because it isn't worth the $30-$60 for how much I use it.

Why not get yourself a Playstation and not have to pay for the right to use Netflix?

I know that Windows tends to slap new features on the same operating system and call it a new thing, which is why ending support for XP is going to be a huge deal in 2014 since bugs fixed in the more recent versions of Windows are probably also present in XP, but will not be patched. Can the same be said for consoles? Is it that much of a security risk to run an internet-enabled unsupported console?

I'm glad they aren't abandoning the system, but I have mostly. Now that my Live Family packs are EOL, I'll only be renewing the one Live account for my eldest, and retiring mine. It isn't a huge loss for me as I rarely play online anyway (other than Netflix) these days but now I'll have to be a guest on his account because it isn't worth the $30-$60 for how much I use it.

Why not get yourself a Playstation and not have to pay for the right to use Netflix?

Makes me wonder what going to happen with all the digital content people have accumulated for the 360. When Microsoft dropped support for the original Xbox it wasn't that big of a deal because very little of the content depended on the internet. Now with all the DLC, updates, and arcade games a substantial portion of people's content is tied to the internet.

This uncertainty is why I don't buy digital.

Unless they entirely change the backend after last Xbox 350 Live revision they should continue to work even past this 2016 date.

Makes me wonder what going to happen with all the digital content people have accumulated for the 360. When Microsoft dropped support for the original Xbox it wasn't that big of a deal because very little of the content depended on the internet. Now with all the DLC, updates, and arcade games a substantial portion of people's content is tied to the internet.

This uncertainty is why I don't buy digital.

Unless they entirely change the backend after last Xbox 350 Live revision they should continue to work even past this 2016 date.

No certainty of that. Live no longer works for the original Xbox and they have an incentive to try to push people onto the Xbone.

I'm glad they aren't abandoning the system, but I have mostly. Now that my Live Family packs are EOL, I'll only be renewing the one Live account for my eldest, and retiring mine. It isn't a huge loss for me as I rarely play online anyway (other than Netflix) these days but now I'll have to be a guest on his account because it isn't worth the $30-$60 for how much I use it.

Why not get yourself a Playstation and not have to pay for the right to use Netflix?

My Netflix duties were taken over by an old P4 I had laying around. Other than the zip ties, it was essentially a zero-cost replacement. As a bonus, I can now browse the Web in a fully functional capacity.

Makes me wonder what going to happen with all the digital content people have accumulated for the 360. When Microsoft dropped support for the original Xbox it wasn't that big of a deal because very little of the content depended on the internet. Now with all the DLC, updates, and arcade games a substantial portion of people's content is tied to the internet.

This uncertainty is why I don't buy digital.

I was under the impression that Xbox Gold and PSN were the same systems they are using for the next generation. You may not be able to play a last gen arcade game on the new systems, but I doubt they would pull the plug on their online infrastructure.

Makes me wonder what going to happen with all the digital content people have accumulated for the 360. When Microsoft dropped support for the original Xbox it wasn't that big of a deal because very little of the content depended on the internet. Now with all the DLC, updates, and arcade games a substantial portion of people's content is tied to the internet.

This uncertainty is why I don't buy digital.

Unless they entirely change the backend after last Xbox 350 Live revision they should continue to work even past this 2016 date.

No certainty of that. Live no longer works for the original Xbox and they have an incentive to try to push people onto the Xbone.

Of course there is not certainty which is the reason Microsoft is telling us now expect the EOL around 2016.

I was looking at it from a technical perspective. Xbox Live is going to have many of the same services between both devices for the considerable future. Only when they diverege will we have to worry.

I have a 360, but I'll feel OK switching to a PS for the next gen...there are a few PS exclusives I missed out on this gen, and there's no backward compability any more so I need to keep my old 360 up for a while no matter what. They may have marginally better hardware (none of it is PC class though).

The xbox gold thing rankles, as buying it doesn't reduce ads and it is required for non multiplayer features (netflix and stuff). when I did subscribe, xbox was my primary netflix box. but they ruined (metro) the interface and I stopped using gold at all. Also never warmed up to the kinnect, which basically sucked. its games sucked and they failed to capture my imagination. I did not enjoy my RRoD experience. I never like their insistence on crippling the xbox with too-small non-user-replaceable HDD.

but, PS4 multiplayer won't be free, PS3 multiplayer was down for a very long time once (that's like a RRoD outage right there).

So I don't know what will happen for me, but I will watch these next-gen consoles with great interest. Except the wii U, though that lego game is tempting.

Ars' subheadline is jumping to a conclusion that Mehdi didn't say. As quoted by Eurogamer, his satement was:

Quote:

"The strategy will continue which is that we're looking to be break even or low margin at worst on [Xbox One]," Mehdi said, "and then make money selling additional games, the Xbox Live service and other capabilities on top.

"Looking" to break even is not the same thing as actually being break even or slightly profitable. It's an oddly elliptical way of speaking if you mean to say you are break even - why not just say "we ARE break even or low margin right now"? Eurogamer's own reporter seems to have understood the distinction; his writeup says that "Microsoft said it intends for the £429 Xbox One to be a profitable product from day one." "Intends" captures the nuance of Mehdi's remarks that the Ars subheadline obliterates.

Makes me wonder what going to happen with all the digital content people have accumulated for the 360. When Microsoft dropped support for the original Xbox it wasn't that big of a deal because very little of the content depended on the internet. Now with all the DLC, updates, and arcade games a substantial portion of people's content is tied to the internet.

This uncertainty is why I don't buy digital.

Unless they entirely change the backend after last Xbox 350 Live revision they should continue to work even past this 2016 date.

No certainty of that. Live no longer works for the original Xbox and they have an incentive to try to push people onto the Xbone.

Of course there is not certainty which is the reason Microsoft is telling us now expect the EOL around 2016.

I was looking at it from a technical perspective. Xbox Live is going to have many of the same services between both devices for the considerable future. Only when they diverege will we have to worry.

That is why I don't buy digital. There is no certainty that it will be available in the future. Even if they keep the 360 online until 2020 that means people still lose content in 2020 which is barely more acceptable than 2016.

That is why I don't buy digital. There is no certainty that it will be available in the future. Even if they keep the 360 online until 2020 that means people still lose content in 2020 which is barely more acceptable than 2016.

I'm confused. Why do you think the Xbox only "going" for another 3 years means you won't be able to play digital games on your hard drive? Am I missing something?

"Mehdi revealed that Microsoft is "looking to be break even or low margin at worst" for the Xbox One hardware, which will sell for $499 with a packaged Kinect camera at release."

Wasnt the sensor on the Kinect 2 reportedly almost as much as the console itself? If so, how is this possible?

Doubt it. It's just a camera and infrared sensor. The magic is in the software.

It's also a microphone and has some cpu/memory onboard for processing, but yeah, the hardware isn't the big cost on the Kinect. I still think the Kinect on the XBone is a mistake. The original Kinect got a pretty lukewarm reception from the public and developers never really made it work very well. The next one is supposed to be better, but marginal improvements don't rescue bad ideas.

[quote="[url=http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=25220277#p25220277]A314InTheSky Given their similarity it is surprising that so few titles have been cross-ported from one platform to the other. Is this simply due to commercial reasons or is it technically a major challenge ?[/quote]

Quite simply, because Microsoft makes more money from the console game. Allowing more games to be cross-platform would give people less expensive to buy the console hardware and pay console prices for a game.

Makes me wonder what going to happen with all the digital content people have accumulated for the 360. When Microsoft dropped support for the original Xbox it wasn't that big of a deal because very little of the content depended on the internet. Now with all the DLC, updates, and arcade games a substantial portion of people's content is tied to the internet.

This uncertainty is why I don't buy digital.

Unless they entirely change the backend after last Xbox 350 Live revision they should continue to work even past this 2016 date.

No certainty of that. Live no longer works for the original Xbox and they have an incentive to try to push people onto the Xbone.

Of course there is not certainty which is the reason Microsoft is telling us now expect the EOL around 2016.

I was looking at it from a technical perspective. Xbox Live is going to have many of the same services between both devices for the considerable future. Only when they diverege will we have to worry.

That is why I don't buy digital. There is no certainty that it will be available in the future. Even if they keep the 360 online until 2020 that means people still lose content in 2020 which is barely more acceptable than 2016.

"Mehdi revealed that Microsoft is "looking to be break even or low margin at worst" for the Xbox One hardware, which will sell for $499 with a packaged Kinect camera at release."

Wasnt the sensor on the Kinect 2 reportedly almost as much as the console itself? If so, how is this possible?

Those reports much clearly be wrong.

I assume you mean must . I thought about it more after posting this and it very well could be true. Lets say the hardware costs them $225 and the sensor costs them $210. After you add in the costs of cables, assembly, shipping & handling, and marketing, it probably comes pretty close to 499.

I really didn't think a 10-year lifespan was the going to happen. They showed me.

Well this is good news because they Snoop Dogg'd the first Xbox when the 360 came out. By that I mean they dropped it like it was hot.

Along this thought line ....

Quote:

"We're going to continue to invest in the Xbox 360 and the two devices can work in concert," Mehdi said later. "It's not like the day we ship the Xbox One your 360 won't work; we'll continue to support it. In fact, we're going to ship over 100 new games on Xbox 360. So you'll still be able to play your [older] games, just not on the same exact box."

Yea, the bolded bit kind of makes me wonder what they've actually been talking about. He could have said, "It's not like the day we ship the Xbox One we drop 360 support" or something like that. No, he said that it won't stop working. Call me paranoid but their recent antics have me wondering what they plan on next or even Xbox Two wise.

That is why I don't buy digital. There is no certainty that it will be available in the future. Even if they keep the 360 online until 2020 that means people still lose content in 2020 which is barely more acceptable than 2016.

I'm confused. Why do you think the Xbox only "going" for another 3 years means you won't be able to play digital games on your hard drive? Am I missing something?

Some require live and hard drives fail all the time. My point is those digital copies have a very short life when future support is uncertain.

That is why I don't buy digital. There is no certainty that it will be available in the future. Even if they keep the 360 online until 2020 that means people still lose content in 2020 which is barely more acceptable than 2016.

I'm confused. Why do you think the Xbox only "going" for another 3 years means you won't be able to play digital games on your hard drive? Am I missing something?

That is why I don't buy digital. There is no certainty that it will be available in the future. Even if they keep the 360 online until 2020 that means people still lose content in 2020 which is barely more acceptable than 2016.

I'm confused. Why do you think the Xbox only "going" for another 3 years means you won't be able to play digital games on your hard drive? Am I missing something?

Some require live and hard drives fail all the time. My point is those digital copies have a very short life when future support is uncertain.

Any game that requires live won't care if it is digital or physical. If it requires live a disc won't work either.

The hard drive thing makes a little more sense, but remember that physical devices have lifespans as well. Those old school cartridges aren't going to last forever, neither will CD or DVD media. A hard drive might not last as quite as long, but it isn't fair to in ply that digital games will just stop while physical games will last forever.

That is why I don't buy digital. There is no certainty that it will be available in the future. Even if they keep the 360 online until 2020 that means people still lose content in 2020 which is barely more acceptable than 2016.

I'm confused. Why do you think the Xbox only "going" for another 3 years means you won't be able to play digital games on your hard drive? Am I missing something?

Some require live and hard drives fail all the time. My point is those digital copies have a very short life when future support is uncertain.

Any game that requires live won't care if it is digital or physical. If it requires live a disc won't work either.

The hard drive thing makes a little more sense, but remember that physical devices have lifespans as well. Those old school cartridges aren't going to last forever, neither will CD or DVD media. A hard drive might not last as quite as long, but it isn't fair to in ply that digital games will just stop while physical games will last forever.

I consider any game with a mandatory online connection or authentication digital.

CD or DVD don't last forever, but they last a lifetime. 50-100 years is the estimate when you take care of them. I'll be dead before my games are. I still play 2600 games and they work fine.

Breaking even at the initial sale is pretty profitable when you are then going to wring out the gold subscription fees from the large majority of customers.

THIS.

And I will toss this on the fire: Xbox One was designed for cost reduction. It may have a huge SOC (by SOC standards) but a huge part of the silicon is embedded memory. This was a cost cutting move to avoid using GDDR5 and/or a wide bus. The narrower bus will prevent the memory interface from becoming a bottleneck for future shirnks. Further memory shrinks at nearly 1:1 on process node transitions whereas logic far less predictable and dense.

The net sum is early adopters are paynig for a design aimed less at best "Bang-for-Buck" but instead designed at giving MS the best "Profit and/or Cost Reduction in the Future."

I am not saying cost reducing design choices are a bad thing. But Sony has almost identical technology under the hood, is coming in cheaper, and because they avoided radical "cost reduction schemes" are providing 33-100% more raw GPU specs (variable across Shaders, RBEs, Texture units, etc), substantially less overall bandwidth and memory flexibility, etc.

As an Xbox 360 owner with 30+ games the Xbox One does not interest me. It will have to win me over with great games, great service w/o silly/stupid nickle and dime schemes, and a good price ($500 is not). So far they are striking out across the board. No wonder Don was canned--too bad it was 3 years too late.

As each generation of console technology becomes more and more dependent on the cloud to live and function, I find it disturbing that none of the publishers or system builders care to directly address true end of life scenarios.

The current generation will be the first to truly suffer loss of significant content and/or functionality when they finally do go dark. And what then? No one yet knows, because up to this point such a scenario has yet to play out fully. Up to now there has always been the option that functional media and hardware guaranteed continued access. There have been a few exceptions on the prior gen, but nothing the quantities we are talking about with current gen. No more.

When a system and its server-side support is killed off, would it not be reasonable that the DRM dependent on the same support should also die?

No doubt publishers will attempt to push the stipulation that your license to a title expires with the platform, so you can repurchase it again on a future platform. Continuing to purchase content from one time-limited container to the next ad infinitum can guarantee limitless revenue. Imagine if Gutenberg had thought of this earlier!

I don't think the book on this is closed just yet. I think these question will have to be answered via litigation one way or the other.